Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Phillips (journalist)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. As no sources have been provided, during this discussion, to meet the requirements of either WP:BLP or WP:GNG, the article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Graham Phillips (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E type of situation. Being a working journo is not in itself notable. There seems to be a lack of coverage outside of that short time in Ukraine. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: On a short list of western journalists who have covered Ukraine since Euro Maidan with a view to avoiding the mainstream rhetoric, you would have to include Graham Phillips whose extensive photography has recorded most of the major moments of upheaval. There are numerous censorship campaigns going on in Ukraine right now and several journalists have been detained or disappeared, and there is de-facto state law against journalists who don't peddle Kiev's propaganda for them. It's also no secret that Banderist and other pro-EuroMaidan elements have been laboriously editing, censoring, and making a pool of lies out of any Ukraine-related articles. This proposed deletion is just one more of those attempts. Graham Phillips is "notable" enough judging by the number of followers on his twitter feed (over 34,000), and his portfolio on Ukraine is extensive enough, to merit having a Wikipedia entry. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are many entries of ppl in similar WP:BLP1E type of situations... Grahams activities are not over in the Ukraine and there are many journalists and other "professionals" whose inclusion in Wikipedia are just as questionable, if not more so, as the inclusion of this entry. len (talk) 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep : "Appearing" to be a WP:BLP1E type of situation is not not sufficient reason to delete any entry as what "appears" to be a situation to 1 person is not sufficent to delete an article. If you believe it should be deleted then that should also be supported by a majority of the ppl voting. len (talk) 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above; only one is allowed. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Notable journalist covered in numerous articles, and writing for reliable major news media. Especially notable for objective coverage in English language from ranks of resistance groups in Donbass.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Using the words "reliable major news media", "objective", and "resistance groups" to describe Graham Phillips' work doesn't really square with the same Graham Phillips of whom I'm aware (and "journalist" is a pretty big stretch as well...), but regardless, I do agree that he is a notable person. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * He doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; I agree with Le petit fromage, Duffbeerforme &c. I'd also like to highlight that it's impossible to maintain a neutral article when the subject is controversial and has little or no coverage in independent sources. I've seen some very problematic edits here, mostly from Len, who seems to own the article and keeps it scrupulously clean with the help of deeply misleading summaries. User:GrahamWPhillips had a serious sock problem; now similar socks with a similar editing style run an article about Graham Phillips. The whole mess stinks; flush it away. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication he is more notable than many other bloggers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparent organized resume-fluffing (?) of a non-notable. As noted above, an SPI is in order. Pax 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.